Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Alex Ignatov
Subject Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?
Date
Msg-id 0ff62839-a697-e5bd-84b1-be2430aa4a26@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?  (Vik Fearing <vik@2ndquadrant.fr>)
List pgsql-general
On 20.06.2016 17:30, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 20/06/16 16:23, Martín Marqués wrote:
>> El 20/06/16 a las 09:50, Melvin Davidson escribió:
>>>
>>>> but it won't let it grow too (or am I missing something).
>>> Yes, you are missing something. By partioning and {Vacuum Full only the
>>> table with data no longer needed}, the rest of the data remains
>>> available to the users
>>> AND space is reclaimed by the O/S, so it's the best of both worlds.
>> That's not entirely true. Think about a SELECT which has to scan all
>> child tables.
> Or any SELECT on the parent at all.  The planner needs to examine the
> CHECK constraints on the children and can't do it if the child is locked
> in ACCESS EXCLUSIVE mode.
+1


Alex Ignatov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Vik Fearing
Date:
Subject: Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?
Next
From: Martín Marqués
Date:
Subject: Re: R: Vacuum full: alternatives?